In order to investigate the tolerance of Ludisia discolor to drought stress, the experiments potted water control to simulate drought were used to study the changes of growth, physiological and biochemical indicators, and bioactive components in L. discolor seedlings with around 6 months of age under different water treatments. The main response factors to drought resistance were evaluated through correlation analysis (CA) and principal component analysis (PA), which would provide some references for the water management under conservation and cultivation of L. discolor. The results showed that with the increase of drought severity, the height of L. discolor seedlings showed a downward trend compared to the control group, but there was no significant effect on stem thickness. The relative water content of leaves decreased, and the content of chloroplast pigment (Chl) first increased and then decreased, while the content of anthocyanin (ACN) showed an upward trend. Under drought stress, the activities of peroxidase (POD) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing. The contents of malondialdehyde (MDA), soluble sugar (SS), and the bioactive substances such as total flavonoids (TF), total phenols (TP), and polysaccharides (PS) all increased. Through correlation analysis and principal component analysis, it was found that MDA, SS, PS, and relative water content could be used as the preferred evaluation indicators, and in addition, stem thickness and SOD activity could be used as auxiliary indicators for drought resistance evaluation in L. discolor. In summary, the results indicated that moderate drought stress (soil moisture content 50%–55%) could promote the synthesis and accumulation of osmotic regulating substances and bioactive components of L. discolor, At the same time, to improve the quality of L. discolor, it was recommended to carry out short-term severe drought (soil moisture content 15%–20%) before harvest so that the biological activities of L. discolor could be enhanced. These findings had practical guiding significance for cultivation management.
[1] 何小三, 徐林初, 熊璐瑶, 王玉娟, 郭捷. 俞元春不同油茶品种扦插苗对干旱胁迫的生长响应[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2020, 42(5): 979–989.
[2] 倪川, 王智苑, 郑雯, 邹小兴. 干旱胁迫对马银花形态和生理指标的影响[J]. 福建林业科技, 2021, 48(2): 19–24.
[3] Gao Y D, Cai C, Yang Q A, Quan W X, Li C C, Wu Y Y. Response of Bletilla striata to drought: effects on biochemical and physiological parameter also with electric measurements [J]. Plants, 2022, 11(17): 2313–2333.
[4] Yu X F, Liu Y J, Cao P P, Zeng X X, Xu B, Luo F W, Yang X, Wang X T, Wang X Y, Xiao X, Yang L J, Lei T. Morphological structure and physiological and biochemical responses to drought stress of Iris japonica [J]. Plants, 2023, 12(21): 3729–3748.
[5] 杨秋悦, 罗影子, 杨洋, 阮宝丽, 黄明进. 干旱胁迫对铁皮石斛生理及不同部位活性成分的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(13): 142–149.
[6] 刘乔斐, 周自云. 水分胁迫对北柴胡生理特性和柴胡皂苷含量的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2022, 61(15): 140–145.
[7] 王洋, 杜会石, 鲍庆晗. 藜麦种质资源萌发期抗旱性综合评价及抗旱指标筛选[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(19): 62–68.
[8] 王云云, 陈兰, 黄梦利, 冯剑, 郑希龙, 刘洋洋. 血叶兰药材质量标准研究[J]. 生物资源, 2021, 43(4): 413–418.
[9] 陈蔚琪, 李丽容, 林晶, 廖燕珍. 漳州市种植血叶兰的气候适应性分析[J]. 福建热作科技, 2022, 47(4): 5–8.
[10] 张汝国, 王小果. 血叶兰的开发利用研究概况[J]. 中国民族民间医药, 2018, 27(16): 44–46.
[11] 林振兴. 观赏南药资源血叶兰的研究进展[J]. 福建热作科技, 2012, 37(2): 4–5.
[12] 吴文碟, 何淑慧, 宋希强, 张哲, 钟云芳. 海南血叶兰开花物候及其繁育系统[J]. 分子植物育种, 2019, 17(5): 1667–1672.
[13] 孙健, 张鸿翎, 韩涛. 4种彩叶树春季叶片转色期色素含量变化研究[J]. 西南林业大学学报: 自然科学, 2022, 42(6): 158–163.
[14] Zahedi S M, Hosseini M S, Hoveizeh N F, Kadkhodaei S, Vaculík M. Physiological and biochemical responses of commercial strawberry cultivars under optimal and drought stress conditions [J]. Plants, 2023, 12(3): 496–509.
[15] 曾松, 欧静, 田奥, 李苇洁, 林世成, 王洪飞, 周玉梅. 干旱胁迫对马缨杜鹃生长和光合生理特征的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2023, 36(12): 1–9.
[16] 梁青兰, 韩友吉, 乔艳辉, 谢孔安, 李双云, 董玉峰, 李善文, 张升祥. 干旱胁迫对黑杨派无性系生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2023, 45(10): 81–89.
[17] 姜卫兵, 徐莉莉, 翁忙玲, 韩健. 环境因子及外源化学物质对植物花色素苷的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2009, 18(4): 1546–1552.
[18] 吴飞洋, 柳新红, 王成龙, 吕江波, 张丽芳, 李因刚. 土壤水分对乌桕秋叶生理指标及观赏效果的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2021, 49(5): 19–23, 44.
[19] 牛欣益, 马瑞. 红砂幼苗叶片生理特性对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 草业科学, 2023, 40(10): 2483–2492.
[20] 杨艳, 陈景震, 吉悦娜, 陈韵竹, 李培旺, 叶传财, 李力, 潘雨虹, 夏栗, 李党训. 紫色土干旱胁迫对栀子生长及生理的影响[J]. 湖南林业科技, 2023, 50(5): 28–33.
[21] 曹镥镔, 曹基武, 彭翠英, 廖德志, 梁军生, 杨欣霖, 王旭军. 干旱胁迫对多花黄精生长与药用有效成分的影响[J]. 湖南林业科技, 2023, 50(3): 66–69,83.
[22] 刘同歌, 苑海鹏, 叶云舒, 张一宁, 屈施旭, 张玉红. 干旱胁迫和复水对火麻生理及次生代谢产物含量的影响[J]. 节水灌溉, 2023(12): 41–50.
[23] Wang H Y, Wang Y F, Kang C Z, Wang S, Zhang Y, Yang G, Zhou L, Xiang Z X, Huang L Q, Liu D H, Guo L P. Drought stress modifies the community structure of root–associated microbes that improve Atractylodes lancea growth and medicinal compound accumulation [J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2022, 13: 1032480.
[24] Wang Y X, Zhu Y F, Chen B H, Hu Y, Mohammed M D. Effects of paclobutrazol on the physiological characteristics of Malus halliana Koehne seedlings under drought stress via principal component analysis and membership function analysis [J]. Arid Land Research and Management, 2019, 33(1): 97–113.
[25] 胡焕琼, 李利, 于军, 梁海连, 吕瑞恒. 四翅滨藜和多枝柽柳对土壤干旱的响应差异[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(12): 2007–2015.
闽公网安备 35020602000789号